How do we defend against this?

This is a discussion on How do we defend against this? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by steffen
IMO, the VPC is the most significant threat of all of the anti-gun organizations out there even though they are a ...

IMO, the VPC is the most significant threat of all of the anti-gun organizations out there even though they are a smaller, less powerful organization. The VPC finds the real data, then the bigger organizations manipulate it to fit their agenda.

Now that is funny right there. I don't care who you are....The real data...good one!

They want the data to be skewed in a way that they can try to make an argument that doesn't fit the facts. If someone shoots in self-defense, they count it. It's crappy data that's useless, that they will spout as the gossip.
Nothing new there.

According to some politicians, the economy is doing GREAT too . And terrorism, doesn't exist any more.

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers --- Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

1. When facts like these are presented by the "anti-gun" side, how do those of us who consider ourselves good, law-abiding, crime-preventing CCW permit holders defend our right to carry?

By demanding transparency into what such data actually means, where it came from, where the missteps, incorrect assumptions or outright lies are. And even then, it takes recognizing such things for what they are, being able to correct them, and getting anyone to listen to the correction instead of the incorrect/unsupported claims.

2. Is it possible to prevent rapists and murderers from having access to guns without infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding citizens? If yes, then how; if no, why not?

No, it's not. At best, disallowing a sale via NICS or some other verification scheme merely ensures a violent criminal will get the weaponry elsewhere. Short of erasing metal, plastics, composites, ceramics and other materials that can be used to make weaponry, there will be no eliminating weaponry. And while there are other things made of such materials, there will be no eliminating such materials.

3. If the government wasn't able to catch all of these murderers using existing controls, is there any reasonable way to catch them? If yes, then how; if no, why not?

Short of having each person implanted with some sort of catch-all recording device that also disables them and deals with them when such a crime is committed, many criminals will continue to evade identification and being held to account for their crimes. IMO, there simply is no way around that. And since it's impossible to have each and every person assigned with some super-duper, unfailing bodyguard, the only rational step is to ensure that every person is his/her own effective bodyguard, affording the greatest chance of stopping such crimes on the instant they occur.

If they're bothered by the number of justified CCW shootings and are using that data, then it might make sense for CCW holders to avoid situations where they need to shoot! i.e., take reasonable steps to avoid getting mugged.

That said, the people who bring up driving and licenses (and insurance) might have a point. There're an outrageous number of deaths each year caused by people driving around their house in their underwear because they 'heard a noise' in the middle of the night. Think of the children!

Statistically, dementia is one of the greatest defeatable threats to my loved ones. The solution is to fund charities that hunt for a cure. This will also reduces the total amount of my family that has to go through it. I'm basically racing against odds.

I would rather die with good men than hide with cowardsIf you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

For every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348)with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000)are preserved through defensive use.

Unintentional Firearm Deaths, 2001, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997

Ok, the VPC states there have been 484 deaths by CC holders since they started gathering data since May 2007.

So what they are saying is that if the country did away with CC permits then 484 lives will somehow have been spared. I don't agree with that argument, but for comparisions sake lets just assume that it would.

So if we take into account the above quote in my post with the VPC argument: They are stating that it is acceptable to trade 484 deaths for 390,000 deaths.

Really?

It is of course unwise to ignore these idiots. But the truth is they lost the 'statistical battle' years ago and just don't know when to give up.

Serve my country, swear an oath to protect it, pay my taxes, fly old glory in the front yard, love and protect my family, honor the vets before me and help fellow americans in need.By definition my country now calls me a radical

Statistics are a way to get at the truth of the world. The trick is to not ignore significant factors. All statistics, if collected truthfully, create useful knowledge. It's critical thinking that's the problem, not statistics. And you only learn critical thinking about statistics by learning statistical theory.

Statistically, dementia is one of the greatest defeatable threats to my loved ones. The solution is to fund charities that hunt for a cure. This will also reduces the total amount of my family that has to go through it. I'm basically racing against odds.

Now that is funny right there. I don't care who you are....The real data...good one!

atctimmy - Re-reading what I wrote... It does sound pretty stupid.
I'm just saying they don't try to claim that XYZ law will reduce crime by 120000% like a lot of the other anti-gun organizations do. They have a way to appeal to people that is different than the fear-mongers, and that makes them more threatening to our freedom than you might think.

ccw9mm - I have to agree with you about demanding transparency. This stat is published to try and show that CCW permit holders are not as law-abiding as we say we are. Basically, when we say that CCW permit holders are To give this stat any relevance, they would need to show crime rate of CCW permit holders compared to the rest of the population, which they probably have no interest in doing since it wouldn't serve their purpose. Ironically, I think what the stat actually shows is that the systems in place don't work. Too bad some people think that is a good reason to impose more restrictions.

Originally Posted by Glhadiator

Ok, the VPC states there have been 484 deaths by CC holders since they started gathering data since May 2007.

So what they are saying is that if the country did away with CC permits then 484 lives will somehow have been spared. I don't agree with that argument, but for comparisions sake lets just assume that it would.

So if we take into account the above quote in my post with the VPC argument: They are stating that it is acceptable to trade 484 deaths for 390,000 deaths.

Really?

It is of course unwise to ignore these idiots. But the truth is they lost the 'statistical battle' years ago and just don't know when to give up.

I never really thought of it that way, but I guess someone reading the article could get that message. About the 390,000 lives that are preserved, I wonder how many were private citizens and how many were police. I wonder how many of the anti-gun folks would argue that police officers shouldn't carry guns or that they are somehow in greater danger by carrying a gun.

I consider myself a numbers guy. A few years ago I learned the life lesson that 1. statistics are easy 2. probabilities are confusing 3. statistics are almost always misrepresented/misinterpreted as probabilities and 4. most of the time the numbers that get presented to the public are "astounding" (read: scientifically boring and largely irrelevant to form a conclusion). The most u should legally be able to say when peoples' heads dont explode from trying to read a study is "look at all of these pretty numbers".

And as a side note, if i can understand all processes laid out in a "study", i automatically call ********.

I like to keep myself educated about what the opposition is using to back up their arugment for gun legislation. Today I stumbled across this website that keeps a tally of homicides committed by CCW permit holders. If you click on any of the counters, you'll get a PDF file with the details of each shooting. I checked several of the newer news articles that were listed, and the reports in the PDF files were accurate based on what was reported in the article. On the other hand, I don't think it is fair that the total numbers include "pending" cases, and a few of the articles didn't actually say anything about a CCW permit. I also think it is unfair not to include the shootings that were ruled self-defense in a separate category for comparison.

So, what is my point?

1. When facts like these are presented by the "anti-gun" side, how do those of us who consider ourselves good, law-abiding, crime-preventing CCW permit holders defend our right to carry?
2. Is it possible to prevent rapists and murderers from having access to guns without infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding citizens? If yes, then how; if no, why not?
3. If the government wasn't able to catch all of these murderers using existing controls, is there any reasonable way to catch them? If yes, then how; if no, why not?

To be clear, I'm not trying to incite a riot here on this forum, but instead an intelligent discussion about how we can counter the arguments put forward by the "anti-gun" side. I have my own opinions, but I would like to hear what this community thinks.

1. We don't need to, even within the ranks of "us law abiding" citizens there will always be a group of bad people and some bad things will happen to cause good people to make bad choises.
2. No, because there is no good or legal way to know who is going to commit some of these crimes before they happen. Maybe if everyone were armed some could be prevented?
3. Yes, but not before they commit their crimes.

This is why it is so important that we as a democratic republic be a good, moral, & God fearing (Respecting) people (Christian) people. But even if all were, crimes would still be commited. Maybe with more consistent and effective punishment some would be prevented anyway some of the repeat crimes would be.

I like to keep myself educated about what the opposition is using to back up their arugment for gun legislation. Today I stumbled across this website that keeps a tally of homicides committed by CCW permit holders. If you click on any of the counters, you'll get a PDF file with the details of each shooting. I checked several of the newer news articles that were listed, and the reports in the PDF files were accurate based on what was reported in the article. On the other hand, I don't think it is fair that the total numbers include "pending" cases, and a few of the articles didn't actually say anything about a CCW permit. I also think it is unfair not to include the shootings that were ruled self-defense in a separate category for comparison.

So, what is my point?

1. When facts like these are presented by the "anti-gun" side, how do those of us who consider ourselves good, law-abiding, crime-preventing CCW permit holders defend our right to carry?
2. Is it possible to prevent rapists and murderers from having access to guns without infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding citizens? If yes, then how; if no, why not?
3. If the government wasn't able to catch all of these murderers using existing controls, is there any reasonable way to catch them? If yes, then how; if no, why not?

To be clear, I'm not trying to incite a riot here on this forum, but instead an intelligent discussion about how we can counter the arguments put forward by the "anti-gun" side. I have my own opinions, but I would like to hear what this community thinks.

How many people are killed every year by people holding an M.D. or a Driver's License? Those arguments are just as invalid as that site.

Statistically, dementia is one of the greatest defeatable threats to my loved ones. The solution is to fund charities that hunt for a cure. This will also reduces the total amount of my family that has to go through it. I'm basically racing against odds.